The Hisar Scholars Co -Op. Housing Building Society Ltd. vs Om Prakash Shriwastawa

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 21.03.2013 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal Nos. 173/2013 -The Hisar Scholars Co -op. House Bldg. Soc. Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by 566 days. Learned District Forum vide its order dated 18.7.2011 while allowing complaint directed OP/Petitioner as under: As a result of above discussion, we are of the considered view that there is ''Deficiency in Service'' on the part of the OP society and they have illegally cancelled the allotment of the plot of the complainant. Hence, we set aside the cancellation order and direct the OP society to restore the plot in question i.e. Plot No. B -164 to the complainant and offer the possession of the plot in question to the complainant after completing the development work. At the same time, we direct the complainant to deposit the development charges, if any. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5000/ - (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant as litigation expenses. However, the opposite parties -society have admitted in their reply that plot in question were reallotted further, so the reallottees are at liberty to take legal recourse against the opposite parties -society. Order of this forum be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as required under Sub Rule 10 Rule 4 of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988. File be consigned after due compliance.

PETITIONER filed appeal before State Commission which was dismissed as barred by 566 days against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum entertained complaint without jurisdiction and inspite of sufficient cause shown for not filing appeal within limitation, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal as barred by limitation; hence, revision petition be admitted.

PETITIONER , along with appeal filed application for condonation of delay filed before learned State Commission, which runs as under: That although the copy was prepared by the District Consumer Forum on 18.7.2011 but it was never supplied to the appellant. That only on 20.12.2012 when applicant asked his counsel at Hisar with regard to the status of the case then he informed that case has already been decided long back against them. The appellant asked the counsel about the remedy available to him against the dismissal of this case. He was informed that now the appeal can filed in the Hon''ble State Commission, Haryana. That in between there is a delay of 566 days which is inadvertent and beyond the control of the applicant therefore, the same may kindly be condoned, in the interest of justice, other the applicant will suffer an irreparable loss.

Petitioner has not given any satisfactory explanation for not getting information regarding order of District Forum from 18.7.2011 to 20.12.2012. Order of District Forum clearly reveals that order was passed after hearing Counsel for the petitioner. No reasons have been given by the petitioner why no inquiry was made by the petitioner from his Counsel or from office of the District Forum regarding disposal of complaint for a long period of 17 months. Not only this, when petitioner came to know about judgment of District Forum on 20.12.2012, petitioner should have filed appeal immediately, whereas appeal was filed before State Commission on 21.3.2013 meaning thereby, after 3 months and no explanation explaining delay of 3 months was given after getting knowledge of the order. Learned State Commission has rightly dismissed appeal as barred by 566 days and we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

AS there was inordinate delay of 566 days, this delay could not have been condoned in the light of the judgments passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court and the National Commission in (1) : (2010) 5 SCC 459 -Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr.; (2) : (2012) 3 SCC 563 -Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. and (3), 2012 (2) CPC 3 (State Commission) -Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.